Monday, September 24, 2007

Did Hillary’s Campaign Kill a Story?

We read at Politico that Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign killed a story:

Early this summer, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign for president learned that the men’s magazine GQ was working on a story the campaign was sure to hate: an account of infighting in Hillaryland.

So Clinton’s aides pulled a page from the book of Hollywood publicists and offered GQ a stark choice: Kill the piece, or lose access to planned celebrity coverboy Bill Clinton.

Despite internal protests, GQ editor Jim Nelson met the Clinton campaign’s demands, which had been delivered by Bill Clinton’s spokesman, Jay Carson, several sources familiar with the conversations said.

GQ writer George Saunders traveled with Clinton to Africa in July, and Clinton is slated to appear on the cover of GQ’s December issue, in which it traditionally names a “Man of the Year,” according magazine industry sources.

And the offending article by Atlantic Monthly staff writer Josh Green got the spike.

“I don’t really get into the inner workings of the magazine, but I can tell you that yes, we did kill a Hillary piece. We kill pieces all the time for a variety of reasons,” Nelson said in an e-mail to Politico.

He did not respond to follow-up questions. A Clinton campaign spokesman declined to comment.
You can read the entire story here.

Folks, can it be true?

Did Hillary Clinton’s vast left-wing campaign kill a story GQ, a smallish magazine, was planning to run?

Why would Hillary’s campaign do such a thing?

What could GQ have been planning to say?

Why no shouts from the "free speech" crowd?

And will the NY Betray Us disclose what the Clinton campaign is keeping from us, just as it discloses America’s national security secrets?

I don’t think so. Party loyalty runs too deep.

Your turn.


Anonymous said...

Oh, please, I enjoy GQ for the lovely clothes and toys, but they're so far up the alimentary canal of the Dhimmocrat party it's sad.

Hard to believe they even had to put pressure on them to kill the story.


DukeEgr93 said...

So, playing devil's advocate - if I'm a Person of Status, and I find out that a magazine is going to do a hatchet job on a close personal associate / spouse - who is also a Person of Status - and I say, "Do this, and I will never grant you an interview again." That's a bad thing? Not sure I understand... Freedom of the press and freedom of speech can work together in that the press can feel free to say what they want and I can feel free not to talk to them if they say something I don't like in a way I don't like. For instance - with the Duke lacrosse case, I think the three men were perfectly justified in shutting off communications with, say, the N&O because of running the vigilante ad. Yes?

DukeEgr93 said...

Important note: I play devil's advocate here relatively often because I'm allowed to do so and because the posts spark interesting discussions. Just sayin' that in case anyone misinterprets anything as JinC-bashing generally :) Probably means I should post more often when I am in full or predominant agreement, but where's the fun in that?

HumboldtBlue said...

Off topic,

Greetings John, AC, DE,

John please tell me you have been watching "The War", Ken Burns' documentary on WW2.

It's wll done, just .... well done. The music (Duke, Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, Dorsey's) is haunting, the images riveting, the stories heartbreaking, evocative ...

Once this is over I'll be back to hammer y'uns, but please watch this doc. I am heartbroken that so many kids (hell, I call'em kids, I'm only 40) have no idea what happened 1939-45, so many kids have no connection to their history.